Posted by Tom_Johnston on September 20, 2007 at 12:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OMIGAWD! Did Barbra Williamson actually say "Is there no church in Oxnard that will take her in?" Let me guess...is that because all the MEXICANS live in Oxnard? Please not a Simi Valley church!

Williamson further states that Liliana "is making the church look bad" OMIGOSH! Not in SIMI VALLEY! Like the previous remark doesn't make Simi look bad?

If this doesn't set up a serious of remarks about Simi Valley I don't know what will!

Mayor Miller says: ""I don't want to every Sunday get 50 or 60 policemen out there to maintain order,"..What an exaggeration! ..hey seems like there were less that a dozen officers there by the first articles account and even they could not stop a man from being assaulted with a chemical spray....so what were they doing there?

There is a need for rational discussion about this issue but I don't expect it to come from Simi Valley city officials anytime soon.

Maybe their lawyers will knock some sense into them...

Posted by Freedom1 on September 20, 2007 at 4:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The "rational discussion" has been going on for the last twenty years ever since our elected officials promised that amnesty would be the resolution to illegal immigration and then did nothing about it. The City is addressing the issue upfront - the Rev. Gourdy was warned what would happen if they proceeded with becoming part of the sanctuary movement and now they face the consequences of their actions. I can't imagine that Mayor Miller, our retired Police Chief and Los Angeles County Sheriff for twenty years, would have begun this action without the possibility that he was within his rights to do so. Win or lose, I admire the stance taken by the Mayor and City Council.

Posted by Ventura22 on September 20, 2007 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The church is responsible for this. The fees came about as a result of their unlawful activity, not an innocent protest or people exercising their rights. Nobody's rights were violated, nor liberties deprived, so why is the ACLU trying to make this into something it's not? Oh, I forgot, that's what they always try to do! I applaud Simi Valley for taking the stance they did.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 20, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The issue is that they (the church) set up this confrontation," Miller said during a news conference.THE CHURCH SET UP THE NEWS CONFERENCE!

He said if the church had not announced it was sheltering an illegal immigrant there would not have been a protest and "we would not have had this problem and this $40,000 could have been spent on something else." THE CHURCH RELEASED THIS INFO. TO THE NEWSPAPER!!!!

The protest was organized by an anti-illegal immigration group called Save Our State, which hoped to make a citizen's arrest of Liliana.NO ONE WOULD HAVE KNOWN IF THE CHURCH KEPT THIER MOUTH SHUT!
So basically the Church brought all this upon themselves for attention....... They admitted to harboring ( a crime) so they should be held responsible.........period.

Posted by hamskid on September 20, 2007 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The ACLU attorney says it is "illegal" for the mayor to bill the church? I thought there was no such thing as "illegal" in the ACLU

Posted by Freedom1 on September 20, 2007 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the service on Sunday I certainly hope that someone will as the Rev. Stapleford what part of the current immigration law is "broken" that gives them the right to break the existing laws. This woman broke these laws twice by entering illegally and then had her day in court and was ordered deported. If they want to change the law they would be better advised to work within it and not by defying it. Hopefully she will also address how the Church will be paying for the costs of their continued actions which are in violation of Federal laws.

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Simi Valley Mayor and ex-police chief Paul Miller should send his police into the church and arrest the fugitive if he has the law on his side. If he doesn't, he is behaving as a small town bully and blowhard. It is his call!

The Mayor has alleged that the Church is harboring a fugitive. Either the Mayor's attorney is inept, or the Mayor is playing a political game. It is his call!

The City should be well aware of the legal definition of harboring a fugitive.
Harboring a fugitive refers to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Federal and state laws, which vary by state, govern the crime of harboring a fugitive. Although supplying funds may make one an accessory after the fact, supplying financial assistance to a fugitive does not rise to the level of harboring or concealing. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1071, requires proof of four elements: (1) proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive' s arrest, (2) that the accused had knowledge that a warrant had been issued, (3) that the accused actually harbored or concealed the fugitive, and (4) that the accused intended to prevent the fugitive' s discovery or arrest.

Clearly, under the law, the Church has not committed a crime. The Church notified authorities of its intent to provide shelter to the illegal immigrant. It is now up to the autorities to make a move and arrest her. Failure to do so, apparently leaves Mayor Miller with no recourse other than politics. How shocking since he is the first person to always call his opponents politically motivated. Mayor Miller, we always expect a higher level of professionalism from you. You haven't let us down before. Please don't do it this time around. Simi Valley deserves better.

Posted by smithjc on September 20, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

must have missed something, there, jw. harboring an illegal alien, especially one with a deportation order for repeatedly entering the u.s. illegally is a crime, whether done by an individual or an organization (such as a church). there is no concept in our laws, or statute, for "sanctuary" in a church. you can be arrested anywhere, anytime. (yes, i know there are limitations in ca. law about arrest warrants and night service, etc, but we're talking about basics here, we're not going to get into the minutae).

it is only right and just that the church be made to pay for the police services, as they are at the root of this problem. it's just like the police charging for response to parties that get out of hand.

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

smithjc, it just isn't the same. The City has an ordinance (that's law) for charging for parties that get out of hand. No ordinance exists for this case. Additionally, you are just plain wrong about the law. The Church is not harboring a fugitive under the law. Please see above. I agree that she should be arrested, but you are making up the law as you go.

Posted by ummshaun on September 20, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Regardless of whether you think that what the united church of christ has done in harboring this woman is right or wrong there are a few things that are pretty difficult to argue without stepping on the constitution: You have the right to freely assemble and nobody can penalize you (or the people who you are demonstrating against) for doing so. This would constitute an effective limitation of your first amendment rights. Think about it for a second. Second, due process says you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nobody can act as judge, jury and executioner. SVPD shouldn't be able to do what they are doing without making an arrest, filing charges or going to court. That's just the facts.

Posted by hamskid on September 20, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Simi Valley is a safe community. If it were to become a sanctuary city where laws are not enforced and crime is accepted as a way of life, this city would not be safe for the residents. The mayor is trying to protect the citizens of his community. I applaud him for that.

Posted by SimiAPmom on September 20, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, first of all I must thank the Simi City Council for helping this city look more and more like a town of Redneck hicks!!! What?! You mean there are Mexicans in Simi? Should we send all the mexicans to Oxnard Ms Williamson? But what if they are from Guatemala, Columbia, Honduras, etc? Are "they" all just mexican to you too? lol Also, then where should we send the the other races? If they all go.. you may be one of the few people here. Wouldn't it be easier for YOU to move? I moved to Simi, because I like the diversity. I want my children to know that all people are equal. I grew up in Oak Park - not quite as diverse (but a nice place too). I think that we need a little more tolerance here. After all, where do you these city officials think their salaries come from?? They will not have my vote. Let's get some worldlier people in office and get rid of these people who have nothing better to do than to focus on a mother and child who want a better life for themselves.

Posted by ummshaun on September 20, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and to sum it all um:

"Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob." -Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, Supreme Court 1992.

Soooo...yeah.

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 20, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Councilwoman Williamson made her (dare I say it) racist reasons for billing the church abundantly clear with the statement "Is there no church in Oxnard that will take her in?"

The statement implies that her bigger concern isn't the fact that a protest took place, but that there is an illegal immigrant in her precious city.

So let me ask this of the councilwoman... Does that mean it's okay for an illegal to live in a church as long as the church is located in a primarily hispanic area?

How would the city have responded if an immigration advocacy group consisting of Mexicans staged a protest at the mayors house? Would the city bill the mayor for inviting the disturbance? After all, he did hold a public press conference to vocalize his reasons for sending the bill.

Posted by joeMomma on September 20, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

if you're going to break the law, you have to be ready to pay the price. Just because this is a church it makes no difference. Protect criminals = pay

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know Councilmember Williamson to not be a racist. Not even a shred. What she said, and her support of sending a bill, to the Church is indefensible. However, her comment about Oxnard is most likely based on the fact that the illegal immigrant's husband and children live in Oxnard. Racism doesn't play a part in this statement by Williamson. Nevertheless, she is wrong in supporting Mayor Miller in billing the Church. The City handled the event improperly and let its political agenda substitute for the rule of law. That is a sad day. The woman should be deported or arrested, but the Church did nothing wrong. God bless our churches. All of our churches.

Posted by FedUp on September 20, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you are all jumping to conclusions about Ms. Williamson's comment.
"Is there no church in Oxnard that will take her in?"
I think her point had to be more about Lilliana has lived in Oxnard, her family lives in Oxnard, therefore, it would have been easier for a church in Oxnard to Harbor this illegal.
All you leftist's out there are always looking to put a racial spin on things. if you guys are so willing to accept illegal aliens in to your homes, why dont you go and sponser them, and pay for their medical bills, education, attorney fee's, etc.
I sure am tired of doing it for them!

Posted by hotwildflower on September 20, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

as soon as I read...ACLU, I stopped reading, I just rolled my eyes...they always have something to say. Screw the people who obey the laws, let's protect everyone else.

Posted by hotwildflower on September 20, 2007 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

FedUp, I agree....I, too am tired of footing the bill for their illegal activities.

Posted by jmcgaw3046 on September 20, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There are lot of times when you break the law you pay and pay. It may be just a fine. In Arizona if there is a wash with water running through it and a sign saying stay out and you figure you can drive through and get stuck. There is a big fine as well as paying for the cost of the resuce people. It happens all the time when you don't obey the law.
This church knows it is not obeying the law. It told everyone to make a point. That is why they did it, not so much of the lady but to protest the immigration laws. So because they are a church and we have permitted church to be come a so call santuary, where the police will not enter, they feel they can get away with this. So the protesters come, If the police went into the church and arrested the lady there would be all kins of __ to pay. So the city has to have police where there are protesters to make sure that they don't break the law. Some one has to pay for those police time, the citizen of Simi. Come on that is not fair since the church brough this whole thing on them self. They just could have moved her to another church not in Simi and then there would have been no cost.
So now using common sense the Church should pay the cost, they started the whole problem.

Posted by Brittanicus on September 20, 2007 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You have heard the old saying, United we stand, Divided we fall? Well America is certainly divided over this major issue, that is gaining momentum everyday. Personally, I'm fed up with escalating taxes from both the state and federal government to support the estimated 20 million plus foreign nationals who have illegally occupied our land. Now that Arizona, Missouri and Georgia have enacted harsh immigration laws, millions of illegal aliens are fleeing to other states. Los Angeles, being a "Sanctuary City" millions more will arrive here very soon. Of course now we have churches and religious organization violating immigration laws. What about the laws of Separation of Church and State? To me they are violating their tax free charter and crossing the line when harboring illegal aliens.We already have traffic gridlock and water shortages because of the drought, I wonder what our future will be?
www.numbersusa.com

Posted by Poppa on September 20, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Star ran a great editorial today! Way to go! The point here is that the City is violating the Bill of Rights. Inside the church were 80 Christians following the teachings of Christ, outside were skinheads and hatemongers who came from outside of Simi Valley, and who does the Mayor support?

Posted by FedUp on September 20, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doc - you are absolutely killing me!! you keep talking about the "hatemongers" who came from outside the simi valley, yet you never even respond to me when I mention how that guy who was pepper sprayed was from Westminster. why is that?

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm left to wonder why the city felt that the protest needed police supervision? Did they think the church congregation would become violent? No. They knew that the ant-immigration group was there to instigate. So why then were the anti-immigration protesters not held responsible?

You can spin this thing any way you want, but at the end of the day it comes down to this. The church did not organize the protest, the church did not participate in the protest and the church did not pose a public safety issue. It was the anti-immigration protesters who were responsible for each of those facets.

Judgung from past protests in the news, the city made a determination that those anti-immigration protesters had the potential to pose a safety issue.

Most cities deal with protests the same way they deal with any other large event. They require permits and fees. "Save Our State" obtained none of those things prior to the event.

The church made a decision to "shelter" an illigal immigrant. Sheltering is not illegal. The church never said they would block law enforcement from entering to make an arrest. However, if the church did physicaly stop the government from enforcing its law, then yes, that would have been illegal.

Once you lay all the facts down on the table, only one fact remains. The only group that violated the law was "Save our State," when they failed to get permits for the protest.

By sheltering an illegal immigrant, the church is exercizing its first amendment rights by denouncing current immigation law. By billing the church and threatening to continue billing them, the city is effectively taking part in a "hecklers veto," which was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1951.

For those not familiar with the term, a "heckler's veto" is when a government entity stifles free speech based on the perceived possibility of a violent reaction by hecklers or opposing protesters.

So now we have two groups violating the law in Simi; the protesters and the city itself.

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OnlineReader1, you are all wet. If you say it over and over again, it just doesn't become so. As stated above, harboring a fugitive refers to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Federal and state laws, which vary by state, govern the crime of harboring a fugitive. Although supplying funds may make one an accessory after the fact, supplying financial assistance to a fugitive does not rise to the level of harboring or concealing. The federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1071, requires proof of four elements: (1) proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive' s arrest, (2) that the accused had knowledge that a warrant had been issued, (3) that the accused actually harbored or concealed the fugitive, and (4) that the accused intended to prevent the fugitive' s discovery or arrest.

Therefore, OnlineReader1, the Church had not broken the law. I agree that she should be arrested. But to say the Church broke the law is just plain wrong. You may be unhappy with the Federal goverment, you may not like the law, but that is too bad, my friend. Clearly the Church has had good legal representation. If a law was broken, you would see our District Attorney or local police department doing something about it. No, OnlineReader1, you are all wet on this one.

Posted by Mr_E_Man on September 20, 2007 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OnlineReader,

"Flaunting it," as you put it, is protected by the First Amendment. If "Save Our State" was only there to make a citizens' arrest, why did they feel it necessary to bring so many citizens?

On that note, a citizens arrest would be considered a retaliatory act in response to the church taking a stand against deportation. By the city responding to that act in a way that stifles the free speech of the church, the city is initiating a hecklers veto.

According to the city's explanation, their decision was based on the belief that the church's actions led to a protest, which the city considered a public safety issue. The fact that the church was sheltering or "harboring" anyone is beside the point.

Enforcement of immigration law is not the city's responsibility. If it were, the city could easily get a warrant and initiate an arrest. That is not the issue. The issue is that the city is violating the first amendment and they are attempting to use the actions of a third party as an excuse for doing so.

Posted by Comments on September 20, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a Simi Valley resident I'm furious at our mayor. He has taken advantage of an emotionally charged issue to make a statement. It's an underhanded and dirty tactic. And, I suspect that Simi Valley residents (regardless of which side of the debate you fall) will wind up paying through taxes for his folly.

There are TWO separate issues here and I'm astounded by the ignorance of so many to confuse them. The 1st issue, which seems to get everyone riled up is the immigration issue. Clearly a majority of the posters on this issue feel that Liliana should be taken into custody and deported by the ICE. I don't happen to agree with that, but so be it. I don't need to agree and that is NOT what this issue is about.

The 2nd issue, the real issue is a constitutional issue. Is it acceptable and legal for the mayor to arbitrarily decide to charge a particular group for police presence during a protest? The answer is "No." I'm certain the attorneys on both sides will make that clear soon. Hopefully it won't wind up costing the city (and by city I mean "you and me" as residents) a bundle. Has the mayor or prior admins charged any other group in the past for a police presence during a protest? If not, then the precedent has surely been set. If the mayor is allowed to get away with this then we have all lost a very dear constitutional freedom. What happens the next time something near and dear to you happens and you want to join in a peaceful demonstration? You might think twice about that since you'd wind up picking up the police tab.

And, if anyone should pay (and I don't think anyone should) it should be the protestors. Yes? I mean after all they were protesting, not the church. If ICE or law enforcement felt that the church and Liliana were breaking the law then go arrest someone. The protestors are the ones who made the decision to protest. Were the anti-war protestors charged when they demonstrated? After all, they were provoked when the war was announced in the press. Were all the protestors outside the Regan library charged when they protested during many events at the library? Was the Library charged? After all the Library did send out press releases and use the media to announce their events. And those announcements resulted in protests and demonstrations. Did anyone get a bill for the police those times? Surely not since Mayor Miller is one of the distinguised attendees at those events. And, I can guarantee you that the cost of the police in those events was HUGE.

It's ridiculous and frivilous for the Mayor to have taken this position and he needs to be knocked down a peg or two. Hopefully the wise voters will remember this move during the next mayoral election.

In the meantime, please, please, please recognize that there are 2 separate issues here. If you want to put pressure on the Mayor to put pressure on ICE to make a move - then do so. That's what this country is about. But realize that this move by the mayor is unconstitutional.

Posted by Poppa on September 20, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FedUp, For the last time, this is not about illegal immigration, it is about freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights. I think the protestors and the counter-protestors were composed of hatemongers, skinheads and anarchists. The point is that the Church did not call the police, they even asked that there be no protest or counter-protest, they could not control the protestors pro and con from coming. That is why it is crazy to send them the bill. It opens the door for the Mayor or any other politician to limit my rights and yours. Now that I answered your question answer mine. If Miller believes the church is "illegally harboring a criminal" why did he not order arrests? Why did the INS not go in and make an arrest? If we follow Miller's logic then the police and INS should get the bill because they have done nothing, no? Also FedUp when all the illegals are gone are you going to pick the vegetables, wash the dishes, mow the lawns?

Posted by imbetnonit on September 20, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If they are going to do the crime, they need to pay the fine.

Posted by Poppa on September 20, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again, what crime? If a crime was committed why no arrests? In terms of the ACLU they are now helping Repulbican Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, that should make you happy :)

Posted by MRCLEAN on September 20, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So what if its a church- Raid it-deport the criminal- Arrest the pastor for harboring a fugitive - then remove the tax exempt status of the "church" because it is now a political organization!

Posted by soyculay on September 20, 2007 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once upon a time RFK had a pulblic hearing during the Grape Strikes by the United Farmworkers. RFK questioned the Sheriff of the county on why he arrested the strikers (farmworkers). He explained that the protestors (people against the strike) had threatened that there would be trouble if he did not remove the farmworkers... so he arrested the farmworkers. I can't believe we are re-living the same type of situation. You people that agreed with the sheriff back then are the same type of peolpe that agree with this moron of a mayor today. How sad!

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 3:17 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by MRCLEAN on September 20, 2007 at 3:29 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by FedUp on September 20, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Doc - you did not answer my question. why is no one making a deal out of the illegal supporters who were not from the city of simi?? please re-read what I wrote. also, the mayor asked Gallegly to have ICE go in and arrest her. they have yet to comply with that. deportation arrests are the responsibility of the feds, not the local PD. sometimes the feds will ask the local PD or SO to assist in the raids, arrests, etc, but soooo many cities are refusing, that the feds cant do a whole lot.
like I said before. I dont think the mayor is really expecting to get money out of this. the bill is to make a point.
and one last thing Doc. this is entirely about Illegal immigration. the church has no business stepping in and harboring an illegal. this clearly is in violation of the seperation of church and state. the church obviously wants this to be a political thing, and now it is. they got what they wanted, and then some.

Posted by Poppa on September 20, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FedUp, The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion, why is it when Christians actually follow the example of Christ that Conservatives attack them? In terms of the counter-protestors wasn't it enough that they were maced by the skinheads and hatemongers while the police watched and were being paid $40,000? If you are holding that anything illegal should be punished are you telling me you never cheat on your taxes, speed down the highway, litter, etc? If you do those things did you turn yourself in? Isn't a crime a crime or do you only care when the law breaker has brown skin?

Posted by soumyeah on September 20, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe this isn't a big deal buuuut:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

I think the Mayor might have screwed a few of these up

Posted by sawyerfamily on September 20, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The taxpaying citizens of Simi Valley should not have to pay for the church's decision to harbor this illegal alien. It was their choice to harbor this woman and they were well aware of the consequences.

No illegal alien = No protestors = No bill

Doc, maybe we could put some of our welfare recipients to work picking vegetables. That would, in essence, be "free labor" already paid for by us taxpayers. Then the cost of our produce would go down. Our teenagers could then get the jobs washing dishes and mowing lawns and we could give them back the work ethic they lost.

Posted by FedUp on September 20, 2007 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

freedom of religion has nothing to do with harboring an illegal fugitive! quit bringing that up!!
sure, I speed. does it anyway effect the education system? nope. have I cheated on my taxes?? I sure hope not. I will have to check with the ceo in my family. she does them for us. please compare apples to apples.
as for who will pick those apples, if the illegals are sent home?? how about chain gangs, welfare recipients, high school aged spoiled brats. there is a long line of lazy people in this country, who should be forced to do menial jobs, if they are collecting welfare. if it means I have to pay $.50 more for a head of lettuce, so be it. but if you get the chain gangs to pick all the veggies and fruit, the overhead for the farmers would be even less than it is now. when I was in HS, I worked as a dishwasher, I mowed neighbors lawns, I washed cars. my parents tought me about working for money. too many kids nowadays have everything handed to them. make them do these jobs. teach them respect for a hards day work.
I sure as heck dont sound like I am in my early 30's!! haha.

Posted by soumyeah on September 20, 2007 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendment have nothing to do with "freedom of religion". that's the first amendment. Read 5 through 8 and ask yourself how the city's actions hold up to them. Anyone? I mean if someone kills somebody and is caught red handed they still have to go to court right? Or should we do away with the the idea of trial by jury and have the police start throwing people in jail and taking money from people arbitrarily?

Posted by Comments on September 20, 2007 at 4:40 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by MRCLEAN on September 20, 2007 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Comments: this issue has EVERYTHING to do with illegal immigration! Why cant you illegal advocates ever discuss without throwing accusations of racism around?

Posted by Comments on September 20, 2007 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Er, MrClean I did not throw any accusation of racism around. Methinks you may have a guilty conscience.

I simply stated that this issue is NOT about illegal immigration.

Posted by FedUp on September 20, 2007 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

comments - just for the record. I did read what you wrote, and I was NOT the one who suggested removal. I did not find anything offensive about what you said. freedom of speech is important to me.
the fact that you think this is not about illegal immigration is laughable. like MRCLEAN said above, it has EVERYTHING to do with illegal immigration. none of this would even be discussed, if the church was not harboring an illegal alien criminal.
and for the record, I am 32, and do not care if you feel sorry for me or not. this is a discussion forum where people are allowed to go back and forth debating. if you dont agree with me, that is fine. if I can change even one persons opinion in my favor, then I will be happy.
heck, you and I might even be friends and not even know it, due to the anonymous nature of this forum. there is a reason we dont discuss politics at the dinner table.

Posted by moregovernment on September 20, 2007 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Join me in protests at city hall and Paul Miller's house this Sunday! Let's send this power abuser a $40,000 Bill!
removepaulmiller@gmail.com

Posted by sandt on September 20, 2007 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am Sick and Tired of hearing about someone being raked over the coals because they DON'T support ILLEGAL immigration and EVERYTHING that comes with it. EVERY TIME someone stands up and tries to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and stop this illegal practice now,we are labled as racists and hate mongers. I absolutely support Simi Valley P.D.and anyone else willing to take a stand. Even it is just to make a point. If the immagration laws in Mexico were imposed in America the ILLEGALS wouldn't stand a chance of staying here. The attitude of many illegals that many parts of America were stollen from Mexico in the first place, and other than entering the U.S ILLEGALLY they have not really broken any other laws, there for give me amnysty, and everything else your country can and MUST give, is wrong. And it's that attitude, added to the ILLEGAL part that makes me,Fed-up and the rest of us so called hate mongers so angry. Now please go home! And take the ILLEGAL in the church with you!!

Posted by lakerboy805 on September 20, 2007 at 5:25 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 20, 2007 at 7:07 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 20, 2007 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

low amps2 you got me thinking. If I showed up at the church for shelter and they turned me away for not being an illegal, would they be racist? If my lawbreaking was Bigomy would they harbor me? How about just during the appeals process? does the church list the crimes they support and don't support? whats it take to start a church? Can my home become a church so I can just go out and be a flauntlaw?...with ACLU protection...I've got a future so bright I gotta wear shades!

Posted by moondoggie on September 20, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The actual law is in what has been printed above as "...". This method of distorting the law is what the right is using to make its case against the Church. The actual law, without the sections removed and replaced with "..." is as follows:
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

The key provision is the law is the requirement that the illegal resident is hidden from law enforcement. In the case of the Simi Valley Church, no attempt to hide the illegal resident was made. Therefore, the violation referenced above was not committed. How sad that some will distort the law to try to make their case.

Posted by wdwinder1 on September 20, 2007 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Better yet, head north to Canada:
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/sto...

LOL, who says crap only runs downhill?

Posted by wdwinder1 on September 20, 2007 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And how come they only bother to try do it legally heading into Canada instead of here?

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 20, 2007 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

moondogie, if that is really the law..this church is toast! Wow paragraph iii ...well if that doesn't get'em (l) will because conspiracy is damning. Thanks, but maybe the church should have read this law..RIP little church :~(

Posted by rg on September 20, 2007 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow. I guess there is no shortage of opinions here.

I'm just wondering if Save Our State shows up next week to protest if the bill will be sent to the Mayor. After all he practically begged them to come and do it again. After all, that was his argument for sending the bill to the church so it should apply to him too.

Posted by lakerboy805 on September 20, 2007 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No justice no PEACE..Free the Jena6...

Posted by Nosmo_King on September 20, 2007 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

who's jena6?

Posted by mvieyra75 on September 20, 2007 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have been following the events throught the ventura star. I notice alot of patriotic people, and some who jump on this ban wagon, regarding these ilegal aliens.
I think back on how this country was founded mostly by immigrants if not all. Our ancestors basicaly took this country by force killing entire villages women and children alike. They were lied to in regards to thier lands. Of course our gov. has tried to give back to these native americans. BUT KNOW THE TABLE HAVE TURNED. Life has a funny way of repeating it self. Know our country is being invaded by "ilegal immegrants" and most of you do not know how to act. There is less compasion. But you have criminal in your city. A young female and an infant. Shame on you city of simi valley. Do we not have drug addicts, gang members, and racism that need more attention than a poor female and her infant. Know this country was founded on immigrants who came here to look for a better life. Who are we to judge.

Posted by lakerboy805 on September 20, 2007 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mvieyra75,

you can't use that argument "Know this country was founded on immigrants who came here to look for a better life."

Because someone will say they came here legally through ellis island or any other beach, but i'm curious to know who was handing out greencards and citizenship papers to these people back then. Maybe it was the indians. Someone had to grant these people citizenship. I always find that ellis island argument funny...

Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 21, 2007 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Church advertised all of this, as far as putting it in the paper. They brought this upon themselves! If I was hiding a felon I sure wouldn't open my mouth!!!! Had they NOT done this then I do not believe a protest would have occured!

Posted by elisacassino on September 21, 2007 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lakerboy805, I was just reading about that protest and how some 10,000 protesters where in front of the courthouse, with Rev. Jackson speaking. Is the city of Jean, LA going to bill the protesters? Ha I'm glad you brought up Jena6. And as for the woman and infant I feel bad she is away from her family as well, but I also have parents that came to this country for a better life, but they did it legally, big difference. In my day, back in San Cayetano Elementary in Fillmore, the migra just came in and took students from classrooms, it was sad because we saw our friends leave but their parents broke the law and those were the consequences that had to be paid.

Posted by Face on September 21, 2007 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Doc, Christ said, "Render unto God what is God's, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." A church is not exempt from the laws of the land. Agreed that a church should follow what it feels is moral obligation, this is not a moral issue. The woman will not be persecuted in her homeland, she is not escaping slavery, her life is not in jeapordy. She is simply violating federal law and required to go home to her own country which is not war torn or lead by a sadistic dictator. It amazes me to no end that folks like Doc put in a quick taunt, call racism or use Christ out of context, and offer not one solution.. not one. I have yet to read anything offered by the other side on this issue, what is the solution I ask Doc. Oh and please don't tell me it is complicated blah blah status quo status quo. I look forward to what the other side has to offer.

Posted by moregovernment on September 21, 2007 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PROTEST AT CITY HALL! LETS SEND A $40,000 BILL TO THE MAYOR!

removepaulmiller@gmail.com

Posted by tesseract on September 21, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AnnaWhaat - "If I was hiding a felon I sure wouldn't open my mouth!!!!"

The church has something called integrity and is trying to do things the right way. According to their legal counsel, they are not doing anything illegal. If they were "hiding" her by keeping their mouth shut then it WOULD be illegal and there is legal precedence for that. They have informed ICE where she is and said they would not get in the way if they wanted to arrest her. They are trying to do things the right way to appeal her deportation order.

Posted by ummshaun on September 21, 2007 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, I've been following this and posting and I'm just sick of people simply throwing their opinions around. I don't care what you think of immigration, I don't care whether you believe what the church did was lawful or not. Let's say the church has done something illegal. The MAYOR and the POLICE DEPARTMENT cant just assign blame and punishment. Look to steveburatti's comment on Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a). If they are guilty of a crime it reads "Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime." Just like every other law. YOU HAVE TO CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME. You can't just punish them for something you don't like by another channel, like making you pay a $40,000 bill for a protest. Protests are not illegal, nor is free speech. You cant fine for them. You need to CHARGE someone with a VALID CRIME and then a JUDGE can hand down sentence, not the MAYOR, it's outside of his authority and certainly not the police!!! All you people who are backing the city are backing something unconstitutional EVEN IF THE CHURCH DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL, because the city is side stepping the CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLES OF DUE PROCESS. I hope you all are never accused of a crime because what you are allowing for is summary judgment without trial. It doesn't matter whether the church has been in the wrong. Dammit, you have to arrest someone to charge them and you can only charge them with the crime they have committed and that crime CAN'T BE SOMETHING INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS like a PROTEST or a public STATEMENT that criticizes a current law. And that is EXACTLY the reasoning that the mayor is using when he says the church is LIABLE for a PROTEST/COUNTER-PROTEST that resulted from their BROADCASTING OF SPEECH that was contrary to current laws and unpopular. NOTICE that three of the main points of the first amendment (speech, press and assembly) are what Miller is citing as his right to charge the church and not that they have broken a law. YOU CANT DO THAT without throwing out the 1ST AMENDMENT and you cant do it the way it's being done without throwing out the 5th, 6th, seventh and eighth! Which only leaves the right to bear arms, the right not to quarter troops, freedom from illegal searches and seizures (which doesn't matter if you can be charged and punished without trial) and not held by the federal government being granted to the states. Goodbye freedom enumerated freedoms. I mean where does it end? Lynch mobs and curfews?!

Posted by moondoggie on September 21, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nosmo, you are reading the law incorrectly. If the Church is not hiding the illegal immigrant, they are not breaking the law; ie. conceal, harbor or shield.

You may want this woman deported, but unfortunately for your cause the Church is not violating the law. Mayor Miller was Chief of Police. He should know better. The City Attorney should know better. This was a political statement on the part of the City and not based on law. Shame, shame Mayor Miller.

Posted by vae4usc on September 21, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THIS JUST IN! OJ Simpson to come to United Church of Christ.

Posted by Face on September 21, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The church did violate federal law, this is not a question, anyone who states otherwise is not informed.

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

Assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment...

We should all applaud the Mayor's decision to make this "church" pay for the debacle they created. Paying for police protection is common place in this country when one say hosts a carnival or other private party endeavors. Once this "church" announced they were breaking federal law, and announced they were having a protest on day x at time y... it is no different then announcing and hosting a carnival where you guessed it.. they would have to pay for extra police protection. Finding creative ways to stop public and private entities from violating laws at taxpayer expense should be encouraged. There is no violation of constitutional rights here, this was not a random incident where a bunch of people just showed up for no reason to hassle a church. Mayor Miller should be praised and acclamated for his common sense and efforts to stamp out illegal sanctuaries wherever possible by any legal means at his disposal.

Posted by tesseract on September 21, 2007 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Face99,

The lawyers that have been advising the Church state otherwise. They say there is no legal precedence for finding the church doing anything illegal as long as the church informs ICE where Liliana is and that they state they will not stop them from arresting her.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on September 21, 2007 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

elisacassino ,What year was that? I do not remember anything like that in school???

tesseract,Ok since you keep commenting only on my comments. When I blame he Church......I will NOW assume you are one of the ones hiding her........

Posted by lrgvanman on September 22, 2007 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Illegal...what does that mean?

Posted by lrgvanman on September 22, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see how many contrary posts we see as a result to my last post, "Illegals...What does that mean?". After all, we now have an illegal immigrant being harbored by a church of all things and a legal organization claiming illegality in the fining of the church. What next? Either a breaking of laws is illegal or we are all in the Twilight Zone of a surreal world. I am happy to hear about the church fine but disgusted that this legal organization would sponsor that kind of activity.

Posted by bugmenot on September 22, 2007 at 7:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe Barbra Williamson doesn't want Liliana in Simi because she's not hooked on and/or manufacturing meth.

SNAP!

Posted by tesseract on September 23, 2007 at 11:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AnnaWhaat - I do not belong to the Church that is providing sanctuary for Liliana.

I have, however, made an effort to find out about more about the situation.

Posted by JimmyM on September 24, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

For years now the Mayor and the City Council have been running this city as if it were their own exclusive country club. I am not the least bit surprised that Mayor Miller now believes he has the authority to decide what is acceptable speech here in Simi Valley and to punish anyone who dares to question his authority.

Posted by archer on January 15, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fast forward to mid-january 08....I will continue to openly express my views on Simi Valley’s apparently ‘outlaw-encouraging’, govt. tax-exempt very political ‘house of worship’ to stand as a community fraud.
I am a resident of Simi and I attend church here. I attended the last City Council meeting about this federal female scofflaw ‘mother’. This matter is not being handled right. I am very worried about such ILLEGAL ALIENS because it affects me directly. This ‘Liliana stalemate’ is NOT good and Simi Valley is becoming a national disgrace.
However, I’m always proud of my city getting national recognition with the lowest city crime statistics nationally. But now, due to the reckless actions of some arrogant grandstanding church leaders here, Simi has a new ‘notoriety’ of being the ‘comfortable summer home’ of a convicted federal outlaw. And I hope Liliana will be sent back soon to her real home In Mexico.

I have some thoughts:
In Simi; do people have a voluntary ability to NOT obey ‘The Law’, without law enforcement stepping in to enforce the law?

When did ‘aiding and assisting’ a convicted law-breaker become such a large problem that our govt couldn’t correct it ? Would these things be handled differently with a church-protected child molester living under their sanctuary roof ?

Simi voters are watching this matter and asking for a quick resolution.
=
Since Simi PD and Ventura sheriff have removed their protective prescence at the public picketing in front of this so-called 'church'(really political action group), many in broad dayligh bodily assaults on Simi citizens picketing have occured. There has been several attacks on elderly Simi citizens expressing their peaceful First Amendment Constitutional Rights at their street protests. Several times, they have been victims of vigilante assaults with objects being thrown & struck them and also 4 local unknown latinos (living in a home directly across from the church on Royal Street) ran across the street to beat up and batter two female peaceful picketers and one WW2 veteran 85+ year old male peaceful picketer. No immediate police arrests were made that day and the 3 assault and battery hate crime court cases are presently being kept confidential.

WHY While elderly Simi citizens were peacefully exercising their Freedom of Speech, how were they beat up by four local vigilantes (residing directly across Royal Street) which resulted in no arrests ? And, why has this hate crime gone unpunished?

When did Simi Valley California, abandon protecting US citizen’s civil rights and the immigrant laws of the United States?